BACKGROUND: Although the primary purpose of the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is assessment for licensure, USMLE scores often are used for other purposes, more prominently resident selection. The Committee to Evaluate the USMLE Program currently is considering a number of substantial changes, including conversion to pass/fail scoring. METHODS: A survey was administered to third-year (MS3) and fourth-year (MS4) medical students and residents at a single institution to evaluate opinions regarding pass/fail scoring on the USMLE. RESULTS: Response rate was 59% (n = 732 of 1249). Reported score distribution for Step 1 was 30% for <220, 38% for 220-240, and 32% for >240, with no difference between MS3s, MS4s, and residents (P = .89). Score distribution for Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) was similar. Only 26% of respondents agreed that Step 1 should be pass/fail; 38% agreed with pass/fail scoring for Step 2 CK. Numerical scoring on Step 1 was preferred by respondents who: (1) agreed that the examination gave an accurate estimate of knowledge (odds ratio [OR], 4.23; confidence interval [CI], 2.41-7.43; P < .001); (2) scored >240 (OR, 4.0; CI, 1.92-8.33; P < .001); and (3) felt that acquisition of knowledge might decrease if the examination were pass/fail (OR, 10.15; CI, 3.32-31.02; P < .001). For Step 2 CK, numerical scoring was preferred by respondents who: (1) believed they gained a large amount of knowledge preparing for the examination (OR, 2.63; CI, 1.52-4.76; P < .001); (2) scored >240 (OR, 4.76; CI, 2.86-8.33; P < .001); (3) felt that the amount of knowledge acquired might decrease if it were pass/fail (OR, 28.16; CI, 7.31-108.43; P < .001); and (4) believed their Step 2 CK score was important when applying for residency (OR, 2.37; CI, 1.47-3.84; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Students and residents prefer the ongoing use of numerical scoring because they believe that scores are important in residency selection, that residency applicants are advantaged by examination scores, and that scores provide an important impetus to review and solidify medical knowledge.
BACKGROUND: Although the primary purpose of the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is assessment for licensure, USMLE scores often are used for other purposes, more prominently resident selection. The Committee to Evaluate the USMLE Program currently is considering a number of substantial changes, including conversion to pass/fail scoring. METHODS: A survey was administered to third-year (MS3) and fourth-year (MS4) medical students and residents at a single institution to evaluate opinions regarding pass/fail scoring on the USMLE. RESULTS: Response rate was 59% (n = 732 of 1249). Reported score distribution for Step 1 was 30% for <220, 38% for 220-240, and 32% for >240, with no difference between MS3s, MS4s, and residents (P = .89). Score distribution for Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) was similar. Only 26% of respondents agreed that Step 1 should be pass/fail; 38% agreed with pass/fail scoring for Step 2 CK. Numerical scoring on Step 1 was preferred by respondents who: (1) agreed that the examination gave an accurate estimate of knowledge (odds ratio [OR], 4.23; confidence interval [CI], 2.41-7.43; P < .001); (2) scored >240 (OR, 4.0; CI, 1.92-8.33; P < .001); and (3) felt that acquisition of knowledge might decrease if the examination were pass/fail (OR, 10.15; CI, 3.32-31.02; P < .001). For Step 2 CK, numerical scoring was preferred by respondents who: (1) believed they gained a large amount of knowledge preparing for the examination (OR, 2.63; CI, 1.52-4.76; P < .001); (2) scored >240 (OR, 4.76; CI, 2.86-8.33; P < .001); (3) felt that the amount of knowledge acquired might decrease if it were pass/fail (OR, 28.16; CI, 7.31-108.43; P < .001); and (4) believed their Step 2 CK score was important when applying for residency (OR, 2.37; CI, 1.47-3.84; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Students and residents prefer the ongoing use of numerical scoring because they believe that scores are important in residency selection, that residency applicants are advantaged by examination scores, and that scores provide an important impetus to review and solidify medical knowledge.
Authors: L T Bowles; D E Melnick; R J Nungester; G S Golden; D B Swanson; S M Case; G F Dillon; T R Henzel; N A Orr; R A Thadani Journal: Acad Med Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Sara L Wallach; Christopher Williams; Robert T Chow; Nagesh Jadhav; Sapna Kuehl; Jaya M Raj; Richard Alweis Journal: J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect Date: 2020-09-03
Authors: Frederick Mun; Alyssa R Scott; David Cui; Alia Chisty; William L Hennrikus; Eileen F Hennrikus Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Petra M Casey; Brian A Palmer; Geoffrey B Thompson; Torrey A Laack; Matthew R Thomas; Martha F Hartz; Jani R Jensen; Benjamin J Sandefur; Julie E Hammack; Jerry W Swanson; Robert D Sheeler; Joseph P Grande Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 2.463